Provider profilesn The 2016 Execution Management System Survey

Survey. In last year’s Survey itreceived the fourth highestnumber of responses and itsscores while fully satisfactory werenot particularly distinguished. Bycontrast this year saw the firmreceive more responses than anyother provider, by some margin. Anumber of responses came fromclients in China and India as wellas the more establishedEuropean, North American andThe scores themselves sawmuch improved performance. Theoverall average was up by morethan 0.28 points, with gains ofmore than 0.50 points seen inboth the Timeliness of Updatesfor Broker Changes and ProductDevelopment. The firm’s bestscore in 2015 was for Breadth ofAsset Class Coverage, where ithas long been considered aleader. This year scores weredown but still well ahead of all itsmajor competitors. It is alsoencouraging to note that despiteone client wanting to see betterClient Service, scores in this areawere 0.72 points above those of ayear ago. While some clients dohave views as to additionalproducts and services they wouldlike to see, pre-trade compliancewas the only one to generatemore than the odd mention. Inaddition, while inevitably someclients are looking around, thenumber suggesting they maychange providers was loweramong TradingScreen clientsthan across the overall Survey.

In terms of internal
organisation there is no doubt
that the last year has been an
interesting one for
TradingScreen. It is testimony to
the quality of their staff that
despite distractions they have
achieved such strong results. n

Asian markets. Global clients use
the firm extensively to support
trading of global multi-asset class
securities. Around 40% of
respondents were hedge funds,
with the balance made up of a
range of buy-side institutions
including private banks and asset
managers. Many clients were
small (AuM less than $1 billion),
but TradingScreen also received
responses from very large clients.

This gave it a solid statistical mix
against which to evaluate its
scores.